Dtruthspeaker:


If stupid people take correction they won't be stupid!

LOL!
Quite on the spot!

jaephoenix:

Engaging DTruthSpeaker in a logical debate is an excellent exercise in futility. Worse is getting him to understand scientific phenomena, and to make matters worse, he's an extremist. An ignorant religious extremist is disaster. Dude is as smart as a brick wall
And he says he's a lawyer. Like wtf

Now, don't you think we'd be better off asking him to prove he's a lawyer than prove some imaginary unseen god he has cooked up in his head?

Wilgrea7, what you think?

jaephoenix:

1. How come the definition of soul differs from person to person?
2. How come soul is what is differentiating people? Does it have color or sound?

Show where you first asked, what is soul!

Wilgrea7:


You seem to have missed my point. Every argument you try to use in favor of your book as some sort of credible evidence, can be used by others in favor of their contradictory book.

A muslim can claim to have known and tested his koran as well. same as a hindu or a sihk. Statements like this rarely do anything to move the discussion forward.

If you point to a verse in the bible that claims Yahweh created humans, a hindu can point to an opposing verse saying brahma did so, and a muslim can do the same in regards to Allah. if you want to point to scripture, which is an unsubstantiated claim, then you must provide some sort of evidence to back it up.

I, buda, point to the book of the god of buda!

Actually, I'm not pointing because I don't want you finding and reading it and then getting a share of my god, but I do point myself to it.

budaatum:


Now, don't you think we'd be better off asking him to prove he's a lawyer than prove some imaginary unseen god he has cooked up in his head?

Wilgrea7, what you think?

Definition of Stupidity. One stupid devil layman calling on other laymen to prove a lawyer is a lawyer. Your stupidity is immeasurable.

TenQ:


Remember I asked you a question:
I said:
First, prove to me that: Everything that exist must have physical evidence?


Your response:


Me hoping that you have taken correction with your flawed definition of "physical properties"

According to YOU: "somethings" (by your definition) which does NOT have physical properties can exist!

Can you please respond:
What kind of properties do you hope to measure as evidence when such "something" doesn't have physical properties, can it be measured?



Or Are you biting your tongue now?

Let me go one better than you, since you keep on dodging my question.
Are wind, gravity etc physical? No! Can you feel them? Hell yeah! Can you measure their force, speed, pressure etc? Course!
Are you now seeing youre such a perfect science turd?
Your parents need a refund.
Once again leave science alone. You know nothing about it or logic. You keep on throwing around Special Pleading fallacies and still insist you are logical. Are you okay?

budaatum:


As I said, many many times till it fell apart.

And I think it describes hypocrisy, and the gullibility of people and their desire to believe rubbish, as opposed to "represents religion", but I guess people see different things in stories so one shouldn't necessarily expect to see what you see.

It does represent religion.
The Emperor's New Clothes" meaning or moral is that it is best to trust oneself and be honest; Speak up for the truth and what is right. Without honesty, people often end up looking very foolish. In today's world, many people feel the need to pretend they know what they are doing like worshipping the right god, without actually knowing or understanding what they are doing. It is best to do one's own thinking and research with empirical data rather than trusting hearsay or unreliable information, from ancient books and respectable clergies. The story is about a situation where "no one believes, but everyone believes that everyone else believes. Or alternatively, everyone is ignorant to whether the emperor has clothes on or not, but believes that everyone else is not ignorant. People ask me, "Why are you an atheist? Are you saying millions of people are wrong, and a few of you are right?" They don't know why they have to believe a particular god, only that their parents, neighbors etc believe, and they are told he's the right god, and thus, they must be right. And of course, they are scared of the everlasting torment for doubters, which is an interesting detriment thst exists in almost all religions.

Dtruthspeaker:


Run away from stupidity! It is better you stay silent than to say something stupid.

Lawag3

TenQ:

Your case is like an "intelligent" carpenter who want to justify the "absence of atoms" with set square, measuring tape while screaming on top of his lungs,
"bring an atom here if it exists so that we can measure it!?"

Have a nice day!

Lol. Your ignorance of science and logic is pathetic. Stick to religious mumbo jumbo. It suits you better

Dtruthspeaker:


I am tired of your asking stupid questions of which every adult already knows not to ask.

Lawag3

Dtruthspeaker:


See! No one can resist not calling you a very stupid atheist.

Lawag3

MaxInDHouse:


(1) If strangers from different races throughout the earth can become like a family that Jesus foretold will serve as sign that his followers will are practicing what he taught them then those religions you mentioned supposed to be Christians too but i know you can lie a lot even stubbornly saying what is not so just to console yourself in athiesm.
Ọmọ there's no religion on this planet earth that can do that except Jehovah's Witnesses.
You prove me wrong by presenting Brahma or what did you call it that are in all the countries of the world like Jehovah's Witnesses! Act 1:8

(2) My God has representatives assigned to gather His worshipers under one umbrella {John 17:20-23} but those who aren't ready to acknowledge them will never agree on the same line of thought {Luke 11:23} so just as you refused to agree with those governing my group since you don't want to subject yourself to any form of doctrine thinking you can figure things out yourself many like you are doing the same yet claiming they're believers. That's why there's contradictions here and there but we that are ready to learn have subjected ourselves to the same line of thought. 1Corinthians 1:10

(3) Of course that is impossible otherwise the company making billions of dollars through Michael Jackson's showbiz would have paid for that!

1. It takes only a few minutes of research to educate yourself on monks and their way of life, but no, Max won't do it. He prefers to stick to the lies he's been fed. So I'll leave you alone
2. Monster have this characteristics too, especially Buddhists. Some other organizations too, who are too humble to jump all over the place and harass people in the name of evangelism
3. Ever heard of Neuralink and other establishments doing research on human consciousness transfer? I guess not. You're too stuck in your Watchtower garbage to enrich your brain

Dtruthspeaker:


When you have a debate do you say the same thing your opponent says? No! You make and present your own case.

And Laws of debate controls the rest. You obviously think that debates run arbitrarily. They do not!/ought not! There are Laws of reasonable debate and these Laws control everything about a debate.

And there are hundreds of Laws and procedures that control it.

Thus, everyone must make their own cases on their own in accordance with Law and cases/arguments are not made arbitrarily. Invalid arguments are crushed Law and all it takes is for an opponent to validly raise it.

So there is no issue here The Law has settled all these things and people even know them naturally so, this is not an issue at all. Every interested party can make their case but The Law would take its course and will treat the case.

And The Law approves the Bible as good evidence in this case. When a Muslim comes and "pleads" his Koran or Hindu book we would see if they are valiid under Law!

So as I said, there is no issue here. Each party will plead it's case and we shall see if it satisfies the requirements of Law!

Well, they all pled their cases and it was found valid

budaatum:


Now, don't you think we'd be better off asking him to prove he's a lawyer than prove some imaginary unseen god he has cooked up in his head?

Wilgrea7, what you think?

He'll rain more insults and threats on you. Lol

budaatum:





Show where you first asked, what is soul!

I didn’t ask. I compared his definition to that of many Christians. Ask 10 christians the definition of 'soul' and you'll have 11 definitions… That’s what you get when you try to define a nebulous concept

Dtruthspeaker:


Definition of Stupidity. One stupid devil layman calling on other laymen to prove a lawyer is a lawyer. Your stupidity is immeasurable.

Lawag3

jaephoenix:

1. It takes only a few minutes of research to educate yourself on monks and their way of life, but no, Max won't do it. He prefers to stick to the lies he's been fed. So I'll leave you alone
2. Monster have this characteristics too, especially Buddhists. Some other organizations too, who are too humble to jump all over the place and harass people in the name of evangelism
3. Ever heard of Neuralink and other establishments doing research on human consciousness transfer? I guess not. You're too stuck in your Watchtower garbage to enrich your brain

That's exactly what i've been telling you: there is no real God except the one who is able to get worshipers throughout the earth.
You can continue deceiving yourself but saying another strong soft drink company like Coca Cola is somewhere even your own child will boldly tell you that you're lying because Coke is found throughout the globe that's exactly what a real supreme being GOD should be able to do without rivalry!

jaephoenix:

Lol. Your ignorance of science and logic is pathetic. Stick to religious mumbo jumbo. It suits you better

Science Major, LOL!
Let me remind you Professor jaephonix.


My Simple Question was about your comprehension of Physical Properties of Matter

TenQ:

....
Abegi Science Guru,
What Properties are not physical but measurable?
I hope your physical properties are not restricted to just mass and length?
...
Again Mr science guru,
What Properties are not physical but measurable?
...

I agree with you that I don't know how science works but at least you are terribly worse off than me.

Your Proud ignorant self responded with

jaephoenix:

2. Yes, my boy, there are non physical entities that are measurable. Examples are wind, gravity, time, microwave, Bluetooth etc. We know their properties and they can be measured

I think I'm wasting my time with you. But let me help you with something to educate you. You will find a list of physical quantities

https://www.thoughtco.com/physical-properties-of-matter-list-608342

jaephoenix:

4. Again leave the scientific arguments alone. You're clueless on how they work

Unfortunately, you are the ignorant one here. No wonder your best examples of non-physical quantities are
Examples are wind, gravity, time, microwave, Bluetooth etc.

Did you attend secondary school at all?

Please, go learn a little more. You are a time waster.

Again, to help you:
https://www.thoughtco.com/physical-properties-of-matter-list-608342

Let me help with another lecture from your eminence Professor jaephonix.

I asked you a very simple question!

TenQ:

.....
1. Do you think the law of entropy allows matter to exist forever?
...

You remember your response?

jaephoenix:

...
Now for your questions
1. Entropy increases as life continues. Entropy too has limitations
...

Remember my response to you?

TenQ:

...
Entropy has nothing to do with Life but Time. Everything tends towards a state of disorderliness and randomness. Energy become dispersed and temperature gradient become zero.
...

It's okay I don't know any science maybe because I'm self taught. However, you seem to be like an ignorant babbler making noise like the sheep in George Orwell's book "Animal Farm"
"...Four legs good , two legs bad..."

I guess, you never read such a powerful book before, always doing cut and paste.

If you had kept quiet and learned, your gross ignorance would have been kept indoors and with time you would have aquired some knowledge.

Don't you have shame!?
If you are not, I am so ashamed for you wanabe atheist jaephoenix!

Good night.
There is no need to respond please except you are incurably shameless!

jaephoenix:

I didn’t ask. I compared his definition to that of many Christians. Ask 10 christians the definition of 'soul' and you'll have 11 definitions… That’s what you get when you try to define a nebulous concept

That's why first question ought to be, "what is a soul", since everyone, according to you, has a different definition.

Think of it this way. Say you ask me to prove my god to you. Don't you think you'd first need to know what my god is? After all, my god is a "nebulous concept". In fact much less than nebulous, or even moreso, depending on your capability to understand and mine to explain. I sure as hell would start by explaining what my god is if I were so inclined that you "get".

Hey. That just me though. Nebulous me.

jaephoenix:

He'll rain more insults and threats on you. Lol

Of course he would. Thankfully, I enjoy it when fools rain insults and threats on me, since insults show me how puny their minds are, and threats show how weak they actually are.

jaephoenix:

It does represent religion.
The Emperor's New Clothes" meaning or moral is that it is best to trust oneself and be honest; Speak up for the truth and what is right. Without honesty, people often end up looking very foolish. In today's world, many people feel the need to pretend they know what they are doing like worshipping the right god, without actually knowing or understanding what they are doing. It is best to do one's own thinking and research with empirical data rather than trusting hearsay or unreliable information, from ancient books and respectable clergies. The story is about a situation where "no one believes, but everyone believes that everyone else believes. Or alternatively, everyone is ignorant to whether the emperor has clothes on or not, but believes that everyone else is not ignorant. People ask me, "Why are you an atheist? Are you saying millions of people are wrong, and a few of you are right?" They don't know why they have to believe a particular god, only that their parents, neighbors etc believe, and they are told he's the right god, and thus, they must be right. And of course, they are scared of the everlasting torment for doubters, which is an interesting detriment thst exists in almost all religions.

Na! I'm not having it. What you described above sounds more like the nature of some human beings, to me, and not religion per se. But that might be my own limitations and nothing to do with you or the story.

I mean, I can be gullible and stupid or what not, and you might blame it on my religion, but I'm more inclined to blame my stupidity and gullibility on myself. That way, not only am I responsible for my gullibility and my stupidity, but it also empowers me to cure myself of both.

Dtruthspeaker:


Definition of Stupidity. One stupid devil layman calling on other laymen to prove a lawyer is a lawyer. Your stupidity is immeasurable.

What is the square root of 25, dt?

jaephoenix:

Engaging DTruthSpeaker in a logical debate is an excellent exercise in futility. Worse is getting him to understand scientific phenomena, and to make matters worse, he's an extremist. An ignorant religious extremist is disaster. Dude is as smart as a brick wall
And he says he's a lawyer. Like wtf

Part of me feels like he may be claiming these titles to somehow appear smart. He also previously claimed he taught philosophy.

Basically an appeal to authority.. and a futile one at that.

Dtruthspeaker:


And The Law approves the Bible as good evidence in this case. When a Muslim comes and "pleads" his Koran or Hindu book we would see if they are valiid under Law!

Care to expatiate?

budaatum:


Now, don't you think we'd be better off asking him to prove he's a lawyer than prove some imaginary unseen god he has cooked up in his head?

Wilgrea7, what you think?

I think him proving he's a lawyer wouldn't change much, mainly because he's trying to use it as an appeal to authority, and to try to sound smarter. None of which would affect his arguments, or our lives.

budaatum:


The sort who is seeking, I guess. Or the sort in who's head a god must exist or they wouldn't open so many threads on gods they say don't exist.

Or a bored person seeking free entertainment because they can't afford Netflix.

I go with the free entertainment part, some people on NL Religion section are more hilarious than Trevor Noah.

Wilgrea7:


Care to expatiate?

Can't! You are asking me to teach you The Law of Evidence, civil and criminal procedure and jurisprudence. That can not be done.

But you can ask any lawyer online/offline if whatever I say is not True or wrong!

Funny, just remembered that the Bible and Koran is used in courts to tie witness to say the Truth!

Wilgrea7:


Part of me feels like he may be claiming these titles to somehow appear smart. He also previously claimed he taught philosophy.

Basically an appeal to authority.. and a futile one at that.

Wilgrea7:


I think him proving he's a lawyer wouldn't change much, mainly because he's trying to use it as an appeal to authority, and to try to sound smarter. None of which would affect his arguments, or our lives.

I am smarter than you all, as proven by the fact that I have been begging you all to give me a reasonable and valid counter for years and years but no one is able to do so. So this is just a loser's lamentation.

And do you yourselves not appeal to authority when you say science said this or science said that?

So you see you yourself know that appeal to authority is not always wrong. So you have no thing here

budaatum:


What is the square root of 25, dt?

Have you ever asked someone to pay you the square root of 25? Or have you ever been asked to buy food in the square root of 13?

Dtruthspeaker:


I am smarter than you all,

Once again... Statements like this do nothing to strengthen your positions

as proven by the fact that I have been begging you all to give me a reasonable and valid counter for years and years but no one is able to do so. So this is just a loser's lamentation.

You've never given a reasonable statement to begin with. The statements, for which you request a "valid" counter are often riddled with fallacies, they cease to make sense.

Similar to me saying... "The invisible orange pen is a thing .. give me a counter to that"

Plus, all the times we've shown you your mistakes, you either devolve into insults.. or yell your famous phrase "change of post"

And do you yourselves not appeal to authority when you say science said this or science said that?

So you see you yourself know that appeal to authority is not always wrong. So you have no thing here

Do you have any idea what appeal to authority means? Because I'm beginning to doubt you do

Wilgrea7:

You've never given a reasonable statement to begin with. The statements, for which you request a "valid" counter are often riddled with fallacies, they cease to make sense.

Now you lie for if i said anything unreasonable there are many impartial people here who would point it out that i did. So you lie.

And of course from your complaint of my raising the objection of "change of post", it tells how much you don't know fallacies and The Laws of debates
so you are talking absolute nonsense.

And right here you have just pleaded you are an Authority on fallacies, therefore you are appealing to authority.

So you have no thing here and this is off point.

Thus, setting aside your unlawful demand that we exclude the written testimonies and statements in the Bible, i would be going ahead to present my own case.

Wilgrea7:


I think him proving he's a lawyer wouldn't change much, mainly because he's trying to use it as an appeal to authority, and to try to sound smarter. None of which would affect his arguments, or our lives.

That dude is no lawyer! He can't possibly pass law school with that stupid reasoning of his. And even if he did, probably by bribing his way through, no one with a brain would hire him to defend them because he'd be sprouting his belief before the judge instead of providing evidence.